Re: XP HOME
- From: Troy Radtke <TRadtke@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'[ISAserver.org Discussion List]'" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:44:38 -0500
...and another one...
Here's a proof that doesn't use division by zero:
"Proof": 2 = 1
-2 = -2
4 - 6 = 1 - 3
4 - 6 + 9/4 = 1 - 3 + 9/4
(2 - 3/2)2 = (1 - 3/2)2
2 - 3/2 = 1 - 3/2
2 = 1
What's wrong with this? Taking square roots requires the use of the double
plus-or-minus sign (or absolute values). In this case, the plus sign gives
an extraneous result, and the minus sign is the one that gives the right
conclusion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul_Lemonidis@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Paul_Lemonidis@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 11:36 AM
To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List]
Subject: [isalist] Re: XP HOME
http://www.ISAserver.org
If I remember correctly from my school days there is a very dodgy
mathematical proof that 1=2?
Thus if 1+1=2 it also stands to reason that since 1+2=3 that 1+1=3.
Other related posts:
